Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2025

Lumped-Parameter and Finite Element Modeling of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction
Published on: February 13, 2021
Predicting 1-Year Mortality in Outpatients With Heart Failure With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Do
Ana C Alba1,2, Tayler A Buchan1,2, Sudipta Saha1
1Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Ted Rogers Center for Heart Research, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada (A.C.A., T.A.B., S.S., S.F., V.R., H.J.R.).
Background:
Many studies have demonstrated that physicians often err in estimating patient prognosis. No studies have directly compared physician to model predictive performance in heart failure (HF). We aimed to compare the accuracy of physician versus model predictions of 1-year mortality.
Methods:
This multicenter prospective cohort study on 11 HF clinics in 5 provinces in Canada included consecutive consented outpatients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%). By collecting clinical data, we calculated predicted 1-year mortality using the Seattle HF Model (SHFM), the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF score, and the HF Meta-Score. HF cardiologists and family doctors, blinded to model predictions, estimated patient 1-year mortality. During 1-year follow-up, we recorded the composite end point of mortality, urgent ventricular assist device implant, or heart transplant. We compared physicians and model discrimination (C statistic), calibration (observed versus predicted event rate), and risk reclassification.
Results:
The study included 1643 patients with ambulatory HF with a mean age of 65 years, 24% female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 28%. Over 1-year follow-up, 9% had an event. The SHFM had the best discrimination (SHFM C statistic 0.76; HF Meta-Score 0.73; Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure 0.70) and calibration. Physicians' discrimination differed little (0.75 for HF cardiologists and 0.73 for family doctors) but both physician groups substantially overestimated risk by >10% in both low- and high-risk patients (poor calibration). In risk reclassification analysis, among patients without events, the SHFM better classified 51% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 43% in comparison to family doctors. In patients with events, the SHFM erroneously assigned lower risk to 44% in comparison to HF cardiologists and 34% in comparison to family doctors.
Conclusions:
Family doctors and HF cardiologists showed adequate risk discrimination, with however substantial overestimation of absolute risk. Predictive models showed higher accuracy. Incorporating models in family and HF cardiology practices may improve patient care and resource use in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
Registration:
URL: https://www.
Clinicaltrials:
gov; Unique identifier: NCT04009798.
More Related Videos
05:15Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
04:05Author Spotlight: Unveiling Prognostic Indicators in Heart Failure - The Role of Phase Angle and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
Published on: June 30, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis
Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview
There are three primary types of models: empirical, compartment, and physiological. Empirical models, with minimal...
Mechanistic Models: Overview of Compartment Models